Athlon 300U vs i7-950
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 300U outperforms Core i7-950 by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i7-950 and Athlon 300U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1919 | 1771 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.17 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core i7 (Desktop) | AMD Athlon |
| Power efficiency | 1.48 | 15.33 |
| Architecture codename | Bloomfield (2008−2010) | Raven Ridge 2 (2019) |
| Release date | 2 June 2009 (15 years ago) | 6 January 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $290 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i7-950 and Athlon 300U basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.06 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.33 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 24 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 263 mm2 | 209.78 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 68 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 731 million | 4940 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-950 and Athlon 300U compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA1366 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-950 and Athlon 300U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
Security technologies
Core i7-950 and Athlon 300U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-950 and Athlon 300U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-950 and Athlon 300U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 24 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 3 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 ( - 1000 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-950 and Athlon 300U.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 12 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.03 | 2.43 |
| Recency | 2 June 2009 | 6 January 2019 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 15 Watt |
i7-950 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Athlon 300U, on the other hand, has a 19.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 766.7% lower power consumption.
The Athlon 300U is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i7-950 in performance tests.
Note that Core i7-950 is a desktop processor while Athlon 300U is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-950 and Athlon 300U, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
